CF-28 1GB Ram

I read in a couple posts here that the 1GB Ram option on the CF-28 was a rarity, so when one came up on EBAY I snatched it up (minus the battery, hard drive/caddy, and power adapter). My current project, a CF-28 1Ghz 768MB Ram, was just about finished when this one happened along but like Pringles, you can't stop with just one.

The computer arrived as described. It left Panasonic as a 512MB and someone added the 512MB chip (its no-name memory). I spent about an hour just cleaning it. Nothing a little elbow grease and Goo-Gone couldn't take care of. Then I went to moving parts around. It appeared I was the first to split the case on this one. I traded the plain keyboard for the back lit one, transplanted the Ubiquiti PCMCIA SRC WIFI card in the hidden slot, traded backs to move my factory WIFI antenna over, slid in the hard disk followed by the battery and....... viola! Booted up great and life is good. The screen is perfect, and the extra RAM makes it all worthwhile.

I imaged the hard disk then removed it and put a 120 GB Western Digital 5400 RPM disk in the caddy. I've been toying with DOS lately, just got AutoCad 12 for DOS running full screen tonight. Tomorrow I'm going to try to multiboot and put the image file on the new hard disk (wish me luck).

Last but not least, the guy has a few more CF-28's with the 1GB RAM up on EBAY if anyone is interested. Just take a leap of faith they know what they're talking about and ignore the picture of the CF-29 he has in the listing

eBay - New & used electronics, cars, apparel, collectibles, sporting goods & more at low prices

 

I got one of these about a year ago with oem ram and brand spankin' new. It has the brightest screen I have ever seen on a 28 too. I would buy another one but I already have three with oem gps and two mint black 600's...well...maybe just one more! Thanks for the heads up,Travis

 

What is your new unit's Model Number?

 

i saw them as well, does the extra 256 MB of ram make a noticeable difference, for the money, because I am considering upgrading to a 1.2 Ghz CF-18 with 1.5 GB of ram?

 

"If some's good, more's Better, and Too Much is JUST ENOUGH!"

I max the RAM out in everything I own.

 

I havn't quite figured out how to post quotes in replys so....

What is your new unit's Model Number? CF-28STMGZDM

does the extra 256 MB of ram make a noticeable difference, for the money?

Against most the posts here, I put Norton Internet Security on it. Yes, it makes a difference in the speed of the machine. Before I installed Norton, everything was speedy with just 768 MB RAM. When I was building the first CF-28 I just had WIN XPPro SP3 installed and I somehow got adware/malware on it. Every click in IE gave me tons of pop-up's. So, it was start-from-scratch time. The 1GB RAM machine handles Norton much better.

I'll be using the 768 MB Ram as a test machine for mods then movethem overto the 1 GB machine after I get the bugs out.

 

Just use the blue [Quote] button at the bottom of the screen.

CF-28STMGZDM

S = Mk3 w/Pentium III 1GHz processor
T = 13.3" XGA Touch Screen w/Std Keyboard
M = 30GB HDD - 512MB Base RAM
G = Floppy Disk Drive - Modem - Ethernet
Z = No Integrated Options (WWAN, WLAN, etc.)
D = Windows 2000 Professional
M = North America distribution

Any time you add RAM you pick up performance (and the money's not all that much, anyway )

Suggestion: Only use the 256MB upgrade when that's all the unit will handle.

Repeating: "If some's good, more's Better, and Too Much is JUST ENOUGH!"

Item 1: Give Microsoft's Security Essentials a look: works good ; small performance hit ; FREE!!! :yes:

Item 2: IE 7 and 8 have built-in Popup Blocker.

 

Just got an interesting article in my mail this morning: Don't be fooled by these 10 PC performance myths | TechRepublic
What he said. As for Norton, I have never heard anything good about it over the years, maybe they fixed it? Peter Norton was my hero back in the DOS days, Symantec not so much. I use Kaspersky IS on all my machines, around $10-12 per machine on the flea. There is a little performance loss, not enough to bother me considering all it does. Security Essentials failed me catastrophically one time, I'm not giving it another chance.
CAP
Kudos to Mnem for pointing me to TechRepublic.

 

I have used NU ever since v.1.0 for DOS/Win3.1 and.ike you, haven't been a very big fan since Peter sold out to Symantec.

Expand on that, Cap.

I recently had to reformat the hard drive on our Dəll desktop at home due to the dreaded Google Redirect Virus which slipped through my then-antivirus software ( Norton 360) and none of the so-called "fixes" fixed the problem.

I am now using MSE and have had zero problems ever since.

 

Expanding:
The drive on my CF-30 MK1 failed about a year ago. While building the new drive I opted to wait on installing Kaspersky until the drive was ready for saving a back up image and used WSE "just in case". I was hoping to save a little time. I might have been loading a "shared file" or two when some sort of warning message flashed briefly and then all sorts of weirdness began. I still had enough access to look for WSE, it was GONE from my installed programs list, GONE as in not on the list! I'm not sure what happened but something not only got by WSE, it completely removed it. I'm not that concerned with maximum speed, Kaspersky does slow some operations down but only enough to be barely noticeable. The only task for which I really care about speed is the workflow in Photoshop/Lightroom/HDR Efex which is not impacted by Kaspersky which gives me the option of scanning or not when uploading images from cameras or memory cards, so there is no bottleneck there. This is just what I do, you have to decide if you have time for really good protection or not.
CAP

 

From Microsoft Answers:

Virus removed my Security Essentials

 

Better Security Essentials catch the malware on its way in, quarantine it, tell you it has quarantined suspicious activity, offer you the option to delete, leave in quarantine, or allow it to run and provide you with a link to information on the nature of the item and details of all the known issues with the item. That's what Kaspersky does. I run Malwarebytes on a regular basis, it never finds anything, probably because the malware never makes it into my computer. Россия пород!
CAP

 

TechMediaNetwork.com
AntiVirus Software Review

#1 BitDefender Antivirus Plus - $29.95
#2 Kaspersky Anti-Virus - $59.95
#3 Webroot AntiVirus - $39.95
#4 Norton AntiVirus - $39.99
#5 ESET Nod32 Antivirus - $39.99
#6 G DATA AntiVirus - $29.95
#8 Avira AntiVir - $23.49
#9 Vipre Antivirus - $29.95
#10 Trend Micro Titanium - $39.95

I've used Avira's AntiVir Personal Free Antivirus on my laptops for many years.

An interesting article about Microsoft Security Essentials:

New Microsoft Anti-Virus Freebie – Made in Israel!

 

Mmmhmmm... Cap'n. Have you been surfing the web using an account that has admin privileges?

*Wags finger at Cap'n*

mnem
1) Surf the Web
2) ???
3) PROFIT!!!

 

Not surfing, opening a file which requires admin privileges . I know what I'm doing, should have opened in the KSI safe run drive(sand box), just got lazy and had seen good reviews on MSE, my bad! The problem with MSE is that it not only didn't catch the bug, it was able to disable MSE. Not very impressive performance.
CAP

 

I don't know that ANY active AV suite is going to protect you once you open a local file with admin privileges; of course, you are RIGHT, MSE does NOT have a sandbox, a weakness which I don't quite understand given its common nature amongst most active AV products. Perhaps it has to do with the nature of the product; it is intended for use by the sort of people who don't even understand what a sandbox is or why they should use it.

mnem
You can't make a product that's smarter than its users...